Classically Liberal

An independent blog looking at things from a classically liberal perspective. We are independent of any group or organization, and only speak for ourselves, and intend to keep it that way.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

It's a No Knock Raid

Canadian musician Lindy Vopnfjord, with Reason TV, has produced this music video for his song No Knock Raid. Some of the images are disturbing. It does show the violence that armed gangs of police impose on non-violent people routinely in the United States. As the song points out, don't worry if they raid the wrong house, they still get their kicks anyway.

We don't need a war on drugs. We need a war on SWAT. This sort of thing has to stop. And, if government ever does anything right, it would close down these paramilitary actions. But folks, think about it, what "civil rights" loving Democrats are out there fighting to end this sort of militaristic violence against the American people? What advocates for "small government" in the Republican Party are actively campaigning to end this big government violence?

Monday, June 27, 2011

Tell the TSA to FOAD

When cops do something wrong the typical response from their superiors is to deny, deny, deny. The pretend to investigate and then announce that after their "careful" investigation they decided that their officers were perfectly appropriate in what they did, no matter how outrageous it may be in reality—unless some nasty civilian turns up with a video tape. But don't worry they will arrest those people if they see them to prevent anyone from every contradicting the police.

The TSA is just the same. And while the cops are violent and vicious, the TSA is a much of pervs fondling and molesting Americans by the millions. I've nothing against voluntary perving, but this is not voluntary.

My contempt for the TSA and for the disgusting Janet Napolitano, who runs Homeland Security, is boundless. Janet and her minions deserve prison for the way they have treated innocent people. In this case we have a 95-year-old woman who was traveling to be with family so she could be with her loved ones when she dies. She has leukemia and doesn't have long to live.

The pervs at the TSA wheel her away from her daughter, who wasn't allowed to be with her and then start their fondling routine. They discover the adult diapers that the illness forces this woman to wear. They fondled it but "couldn't determine" what was in it. They said it was wet and heavy. This shows you how utterly stupid they are. A diaper on a dying woman feels wet and lumpy and the Einstein's that Janet hires couldn't figure out why. They demanded that the daughter come in and remove the diaper so they could inspect closer.

Fuck, the terrorists did their worst years ago. Since then the only people constantly terrorizing, humiliating, mistreating, fondling, and molesting, the American people have been the criminal cartel known as Homeland Security. This is an agency that deserves to be abolished and criminal charges ought to be brought against these people.

In the meantime, I highly suggest that any and all people who work for Homeland Security or the TSA be shunned totally and completely. If you own a business and know customers who work for these agencies inform them they are no longer welcome in your business. A restaurant near a major airport has started doing just that to TSA thugs, and good on them for it. If you know friends or relatives who work for this agency inform them that they are no longer welcome in your home and you won't visit them, until they find honest employment. If you know people in your neighborhood working for this agency tell them you wish to no longer have anything to do with them. Don't say "hello," "good bye," "have a nice day," or "watch out for that bus!" Silence is how they ought to be treated. Do them no favors. Given them no courtesy. Offer them no comfort. Give them no assistance. Tell them they have chosen to put themselves outside civil and polite society and that you will treat them with respect once they deserve it again, by leaving the TSA.

If enough people shunned the TSA thugs completely a large percentage of the staff would leave and eventually the system would have to change. Don't buy the claim that these people are just following orders. The TSA is a voluntary agency. No one has been conscripted to work there. These people voluntarily decided to act indecently toward their fellow Americans and we have every right to refuse to deal with the petty tyrants if we so choose. In a polite way, tell them to fuck off and die.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Rights and minorities: Why the Tea Party Needs Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities." Ayn Rand

The statists in the Tea Party movement were screaming yesterday that the rights of gay people should be decided by the majority of the public. These are the same people who pretend to adore Rand. They pretend even more to read her books. And, a few of them, even pretend they understand her books. Clearly they not.

Meanwhile the Religious Left is mounting a campaign, along with bigoted fundamentalists like Chuck Colson, to attack Rand for not believing in the Sky Man with Magic Powers. They say Rand would have a "bad" influence on the morons in the Tea Party. But, certainly, when it comes to issues like subjecting the rights of minorities to a public vote, would the world be more civilized if they ACTUALLY PAID ATTENTION to Rand.

The Tea Party movement goes bad because it allows the "Bible-based" policies to take precedent over any of the little Rand they read, that the much less of Rand that they understand. Certainly when it comes to social freedoms the more Rand the Tea Party followed, the better.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Cops and bureaucrats acting badly, again.

In the District of Columbia the Taxi Commission was holding what they pretended was a "public meeting." Reporters, however, who tried to cover the event were summarily arrested for the horrendous crime of recording the public meeting. Here you see the typical overweight police officer arresting people for no crime at all. People at the meeting protested and then the police called that a "riot." It takes a certain kind of stupid to be a cop. The evidence clearly shows there was no riot.

And when Jim Epstein, of Reason TV, recorded the cops arresting a journalist for no crime at all, he too was arrested.

Folks, the cops are terrified that the cameras in the public hands will prove to the world what informed people already know—that cops routinely lie, routinely engage in illegal activities and are a threat to public safety. Over and over camera recording the cops in action have shown that they lie in court, lie in official police reports, and lie to investigators trying to find out the truth. There are plenty of bad cops who overstep their bounds and they know the so-called "good" cops will stand silent and let them get away with it. I hear people say there are "good" cops who don't act this way. And they don't act this way. But they DO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN and protect the asses of the thugs they work with. To the degree this happens those "good" cops are guilty as well.

Now that every cell phone is a video camera, or most are, I suggest the following. Anytime anyone sees cops acting they should immediately start recording. Stay out their way, of course. They are dangerous, like rattlesnakes, except snakes usually only attack in self-defense and thus are more ethical. Don't be obvious in your recording. If they see they may threaten you or try to harm you. But if enough people record it then a record of their actions will survive. What the media to see how the incident you recorded was reported. There is a decent chance the media will simply report what ever version of the story the police want distributed. And there is a fairly decent chance that the film you take will contradict the official story. Then get that film to a TV station post haste. Upload it to YouTube, but it out there so all copies can never be confiscated.

The person behind these illegal arrest is a petty bureaucrat named Dena Reed, who is chairing the taxi commission. She called in the police to arrest people for reporting on the public meeting. Both the reporters who were arrested were charged with the police catch-all crime of disorderly conduct, that means failure to obey illegal orders from a cop overstepping his authority. They were also bizarrely charged with "unlawful entry/remaining." How do you illegal enter a public meeting? The "remaining" crime was when the one reporter said it was a public meeting. Apparently public meeting isn't public and the petty thugs like Dena can order peaceful people out for reporting on her actions. What is she so afraid of?

The more bizarre charge is that they charged Jim Epstein of Reason TV with the same crime. But the police never tried to expel him from the meeting as they did the other reporter. So he was not ordered to leave. When the thuggish actions of the police and this stupid Dena woman disrupted the meeting, Epstein left of his own accord. He was arrested OUTSIDE the building for the same crime of disorderly conduct and illegal entry/remaining. He was not disorderly and since he was outside the building how could they charge him with refusing to leave? But they did. Reality and crimes charged don't need to correspond in a police state.

You can protest to this Dena Reed, bureaucrat ,by writing her here: dena.reed@dc.gov. Ask her to resign immediately for violating the First Amendment. You can also write the mayor, Vincent Gray, who appointed Reed, here: eom@dc.gov. Ask him to remove her from office.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Republican theocrats calls Girl Scouts lesbians

Long-time readers will remember that this blog has covered the antics of a far right theocrat from Arizona named Rachel Alexander. She was butt-kisser-in-chief for the then Maricopa County District Attorney, another far Right theocrat named Andrew Thomas. When Thomas tried to send a teenage boy to prison for life, mainly by withholding evidence from the defense, the case eventually turned against him. Alexander then went on the Fox web site and falsely claimed the boy was a child pornographer. She smeared an under-aged kid to try to protectthe reputation of her boss. Well, it didn't help and when the law profession investigated him he went down in flames. Alexander wasn't exactly exonerated either.

Both them were swept into the trash after a top-level investigation revealed severe misuse of powers from the office of Andrew Thomas. Alexander is a crazed fundamentalist with all the bigotries and prejudices that go with that sort of theology. One of her projects was a misnamed website called "Intellectual Conservative." To say the least it was Bible-beating not intellectual.

Now it seems that one of Alexander's co-whores at the site has gotten himself into a little bit of hot water because of his crazed public comments. Hans Zeiger, is Republican running for the Washington state House of Representatives. Like Alexander, he is a Bible-beating loon. It seems that Zeiger published bigoted rants on Alexander's web site. They both helped run the site, or so they claimed. You can see Alexander hawking her law firm, which is one of those specializing in "bankruptcy" cases. on the site. Hmm, maybe she can offer her services to the poor kid she smeared, and whose family had to spend over $500,000 to keep their son out the clutches of her insane boss.

Zieger's little rant against Girl Scouts was, of course, published on Alexander's website. By the way, she has publicly bragged that the site got very few readers, but that she tricked the media and others into taking it seriously. She thought that made her an expert and gave lectures on the topic at an Americans for Prosperity meeting, the people behind the Tea Party. Apparently Herr Hans said other rather extreme and silly things at Rachel's extreme and silly website. But Rachel is doing her duty to try and cover up his indiscretions by wiping out his rants on her site now that they are hurting his campaign.

Zeiger wrote a book praising the Boy Scouts for their policy of throwing out kids who are gay or atheists. That's the sort of hate that the "intellectual conservative" seems to relish. And he said that he is "a leading cultural voice in the battle to preserve the Boy Scout Oath and Law." Humble, ain't he. As expected it was published by a fundamentalist publishing house which claims it shows the attack on "core-Christian values" of the Scouts. Core Christian value? I admit I've been shocked how many brain-dead fundamentalists are now claiming that hating gay kids, throwing them out of the Scouts, is a "core-Christian value." I've seen some of these churches add gay hate clauses to their "statement of faith" on their websites, as if this was an issue that Jesus obsessed over.Well, Zeiger got into hot water, not because of his deep abiding, but doesn't-get-too-close, love for Boy Scouts, but because of his hatred of Girl Scouts. Okay, he loves Boy Scouts, hates Girl Scouts and is a Republican. Keep a close eye on this one. How wide do you think his stance is?

Hans, a rather unAmerican name for a Republican, but not bad for a Nazi, wrote that the only reason Girl Scouts "have been spared the painful attacks that have been launched upon the Boy Scouts" is "simple." With conservatives everything is "simple." That's all they can grasp, simple things. And the simple thing here is that those nasty little cookie-pushers "allow homosexual and atheists to join their ranks." Unlike the Mormon controlled Boy Scouts they don't throw out gay kids, or kids who are non-believers. That the Girl Scouts don't exhibit the same raw hatred that Hans and Rachel do, makes them evil. Worse! Hans said "they have become a pro-abortion, feminist training corps." Talk about a vicious attack on Scouting! Hans clearly really loves the Boy Scouts, while he really hates the Girl Scouts. And the sole reason the Girl Scouts are Satan's spawn is that they don't expel gay members or members who don't entertain fairy tales as real life.

The really crazy stuff was published at Alexander's website. But she, playing Gretel to our poor little Hans, is doing her best to help cover up his indiscretions by suddenly removing many of his tirades from public view. Hans says this is necessary because they were "distracting" to his campaign. Yea, funny how that sort of thing happens. A few minor indiscretions and there are distractions all over the place.

Maybe he can get his blond-haired, blue-eyed little brown shirts to whip up some God and flag pageantry to take the minds of the masses off of these distractions. A good sermon by Herr Hans on the secret, evil machinations of the Learned Elders of Sodom should help a bit as well. For the finale they have the go out and kick over a few Girl Scout cookie stands. And then he and the young brownshirts can head out to the woods for some manly adventures, while he scares then with Girl Scout stories until quivering with fear..... Never mind.

Does Hans have something to hide. Take a look at this information pages regarding Zeiger. It seems to think he is married to a man named Jim and used to be a critical care nurse. Of course, our manly, man, the Boy Scout lover, Girl Scout hater, wouldn't do that. As far as I can tell Hans isn't married to a man named Jim. It doesn't appear he is married at all. But what do you expect? How could he marry a woman? After all the Girl Scouts are turning them into lesbian, atheists. If the Boy Scout saw this he'd be thrown out.

Then there would be no more manly-man bonding around the camp fire, no more ghost stories until they shiver with fear and come seeking comfort, in an entirely appropriate, Christ-like manner, befitting good conservatives. Not like those liberal, god-haters like Mark Foley or Larry Craig.

By the way, anyone else find it odd that the Boy Scout Memorial shows a Boy Scout with a naked man behind him? I'm not kidding. Worse yet, the boys right wrist seems, well, a bit loose, if you know what I mean. I wonder if manly Hans has seen this? He could write another who book on the topic.

No, I didn't take this too seriously. With clowns like this you can only laugh at them and hope for the best.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Ron Paul signs pledge that would keep most libertarians out!

The Right-wing conservative, or paleo-conservative Ron Paul, who has fooled some libertarians into thinking he's one of them—usually when it comes to raising funds, though not when it comes down to certain votes, has signed a pledge that would keep many, if not most libertarians out of his administration if he were somehow to be elected president.

Paul signed a pledge to "select ONLY pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of the National Institute of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services." He also said he would only nominate judges "who are committed to restraint and apply the original meaning of the Constitution...."

A lot of the less-educated libertarians don't understand why that is wrong, and few conservatives do. The judiciary is not supposed to be restrained. It is a equal branch of the federal government not the ugly step-child. Judges are supposed to view government power narrowly and rights broadly. The Bill of Rights was not the be all and end all of rights. It made that clear by stating that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but they are STILL rights. Lets remember what the conservatives are pissed off about.

Take the wholly libertarian decision by the Supreme Court to decriminalize "sodomy," which was a vaguely defined crime under the best of circumstances, contrary to the assumptions of the uninformed. Sometimes it meant oral sex, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes it meant anal sex, sometimes it meant any sex that was not straight-0n vaginal intercourse. They were laws that were selectively enforced as a means of harassment. Targets for this harassment tended to be the black community and the gay community. So, we had laws that were unequally applied to classes of people that were more likely than not, not part of the white, straight culture. In other words, inequality of rights before the law. And that is what the Supreme Court found to be the case. This ruling was praised by libertarians, especially by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett.

But Ron Paul damned it and lamented that it was "a tough summer for social conservatives." Remember a social conservative, by definition is NOT a libertarian. Take a side track for a second. If you support social freedom, non-intervention and free markets you are a libertarian. Drop any of those and you are NOT a libertarian. If you support "free" markets, social conservatism and interventionist foreign policies, you are a full on conservative (though you can be very, very weak on free markets). If you reject the war policies, but embrace state regulation of social freedom, and want free markets then you are a paleo-conservative. But a paleo-conservative is NOT a libertarian no matter how much some of them insist they are.

A prime function of courts is supposed to be to protect us from government which infringes liberty. That is why it a judicial branch was created, among other purposes. It rarely does it, certainly not as much as it should. But, when it does it should be applauded, not damned. Only social conservatives damn it when it does that and Ron Paul is a social conservative.

Paul whined because the court ruled "that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protect under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.'" Actually Paul is ignorant, yet again, of the facts. The ruling was made on the basis of unequal status before the law. Texas had repealed the sections of sodomy laws that applied to everyone and only had laws that now applied to gay people, exempting heterosexuals. It was a case of inequality before the law. Conservatives embrace such inequality, not libertarians. Ron Paul embraces such inequality, not libertarians.

Take a real legal scholar like Randy Barnett, instead of the usually befuddled Paul, as more aware of the libertarian position on the constitution. Barnett has argued that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, along with the 9th and 10th Amendments create a "presumption in favor of liberty." He argues that this legal foundation means the courts should presume that liberty is the favor position in ANY ruling, even the rulings that confused, old men of Christianist bent don't like.

Consider the following material from this man: "The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." That doesn't sound libertarian to me. It sounds like the typical remark from a conservative. First off, Texas as a state, has no rights. It might have powers, but only individual have rights, not governments. Second, libertarians hold that no government, not even local government, has the right to violate the rights of individuals. Conservatives use the "states' rights" argument as a trump card to destroy individual rights. Libertarians use individual rights as the trump card to destroy state power. It is clear what side Ron Paul is on here and he isn't a good guy.

Compare Ayn Rand to the conservative Paul. She said that the concept "states' rights" ONLY "pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal government: it does not grant to a state government an unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens' individual rights." Paul's position is that it does give the state UNLIMITED powers to do anything to the citizen it wishes to do because, he argues, NONE of the bill of rights applies to state governments. Ron Paul's "constitutional theory" is one of total and complete control, without limitations, by state governments, except perhaps what the state constitutions may say. And Paul is an advocate of changing constitutions to restrict liberty according to local "community" standards.

Well, at least he says he is. But when the District of Columbia repealed its sodomy law the Moral Majority and other theocrats were in furry over it. They immediately started invoking their "divine" calling to make other people miserable and insisted that the US Congress should overturn the local community standards. And Ron Paul rushed to the barricades, once again, to support repressive social legislation that fit his narrow-fundamentalist mind-set. To justify his unlibertarian position Paul resorted to his favorite tactic—lying: just as he pretends to this day to not know that his good buddy and confidant wrote those racists tirades in the Ron Paul Newsletter.

Ron Paul does what I call the "Ron Paul Shuffle," when he is trying to divert attention from some anti-freedom position he has taken. He misdirects the public, usually by lying, about the legislation, or by finding some less than convincing excuse for his vote. In this case he said he had to vote for sodomy laws because the DC law lowered rape penalties. This, form the guy who argued that Texas had the right to legally harass gay people for having sex because it was their local, community standard. What about lynching? Was that a local, community standard as well? The community standard excuse is one Paul holds to, except when he doesn't. So community standards in DC didn't matter, the Christianist agenda of the Moral Majority mattered more.

And while the DC law did lower rape penalties. it was reduced at the request of anti-rape groups. The penalty was so high that juries were reluctant to convict when they had the slightest doubt, even if the evidence of guilt was pretty strong. Prosecutors and anti-rape advocates both supported the revision, because it would make it easier to send rapists to jail. Ron Paul lied when he said he was defending sodomy laws, because he wanted to get rapists. In truth, he was making it easier to let rapists off, in order to persecute people for sodomy.

Consider Paul's newest anti-gay campaign, the Defense of Marriage Act. Until this odious piece of legislation the federal government bowed to the states when it came to defining the legal state of marriage. If you were married in any state, the federal government recognized your marriage because it was a state power to regulate marriage, not a federal power. Ron Paul, that great advocate of "states' rights" wants to strip states of that power by setting a federal definition which says the federal government many not recognize state marriage licenses, but only if they are given to gay people.

Paul is quite happy for the federal government to recognize the marriages of heterosexual couples that are issued by the states. The only marriage licenses he has to pretend it doesn't see are those given to gay couples. Once again "community standards" of those states are ignored. Paul's principles are selectively enforced and, when it comes to gay men and lesbian women, Paul's principles are only used against them.

Another selective use of states' rights by Paul is that the pledge he signed also commits him to signing into law an anti-abortion federal law "to protect unborn children." Unborn children? Think about that concept for a minute, it is truly bizarre. Maybe we can call people "pre-dead corpses" and have fun with that theory too. But Paul's "principles" are very flexible indeed. He wants community standards to control private conduct except in the case of DC that legalized sodomy and except when it comes to a federal law restricting abortions. Isn't it funny that Ron Paul always abandons his so-called principles when it comes to his moralistic, religious agenda. Remember he is a fundamentalist Christian, he didn't used to be, but he converted.

Another issue which will be ignored by the Rondroids is that the federal legislation that Paul has pledged himself to support justifies federal abortion control under the auspices of the congressional power "to regulate Commerce... among the several states" which libertarian attorney David Kopel notes, "is plainly unconstitutional under the original meaning of interstate commerce." Kopel noted that Paul opposed a measure to restrict anti-gun lawsuits because he said it relied on too broad an interpretation of "interstate commerce." Kopel, a contributor to several law journals, said Paul got the whole argument wrong because the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to expand trade among the states, not restrict it. Yet, when it comes to abortion Paul pledges himself to a vast expansion so that the interstate commerce clause would apply to whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term. Under "interstate commerce" it appears Ron Paul thinks a woman's uterus is subject to federal control.

In closing let me quote something Ayn Rand said about another noxious advocate of states' rights, the racist George Wallace. I think what Ayn said about Wallace would apply quite well to the clownish conspiracist from Texas. He is "no defender of individual rights, but merely of states' rights—which is far, far from being the same thing. When he denounces 'Big Government,' it is not the unlimited, arbitrary power of the state that he is denouncing—and he seeks to place the same unlimited, arbitrary power in the hands of many little governments. The break-up of a big gang into a number of warring small gangs is not a return to a constitutional system nor to individual rights, nor to law and order." Amen!

I should add that the Gov. Gary Johnson, who is far more libertarian than the fake libertarian, Ron Paul, has refused to cave into the Religious Right and not signed the pledge. And, all the Rondroid fanatics who drool over the drooling clown from Texas, don't bother leaving your hate messages. Comments are moderated and insults, slanders and attacks won't be posted. If you can argue, and give evidence, that any of this is wrong, then go ahead. That will be published, just not you insults and slanders. And, by the way, if you think you have a good argument, then leave out the insults and slander if you want it posted.

Is bin Laden's successor a Republican?

The man who has taken over leadership of Al Qaeda from Osama bin Laden is Ayman al-Zawahri. Omar bin Laden, the son of the previous leader, had written a book Growing Up Bin Laden, detailing his life with his father. In it he recounts an incident with Zawahri.

He told of a friend of his, a teenage boy, who was grabbed by some men and raped. The men took photos of the abuse as it happened and then showed them around the camp where they lived. Zawahri had the boy put on trial for being homosexual and with the photos as evidence he was convicted and executed. I think Zawahri is out to win the Republican vote.

Consider figures on the religious right who have advocated the same thing.

Rev. Greg Dixon was the national secretary of the Moral Majority. In a sermon, he said, regarding gay people, "I say either fry 'em, or put them in the pen. Don't unleash them on the human race." He clearly meant execution and in a debate on WIND radio between he and I, he reiterated his support for executing gay people.

When Republicans in Minnesota were in the midst of pushing an anti-gay marriage initiative, they invited a fundamentalist minister, Bradley Dean, to open the state assembly in prayer. Dean previously praised radical Islamists for being willing to execute gay people. He said: "Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America... And it shows you that they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God. They seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do." So, it is "more moral" to want to kill gays. The broadcast is below.

At National Organization for (sic) Marriage rallies, individuals have shown up with signs demanding the death penalty for gay people. In Indianapolis one NOM protestor had a sign saying "The Solution to Gay Marriage;" it showed two nooses. In the video below, of a NOM rally, you can hear Rev. Ariel Torres Ortega, preaching in Spanish, which was then translated into English. He says that gay people are "worthy of death, not only they that do it, but those who practice it."

Rev. Greg Bahnsen, in Homosexuality: A Biblical View, published by a major evangelical publisher (Baker Books), told his readers," Either we will discriminate against homosexuals, or we will discriminate against the Word of God." (p.9) He writes, "the state and its rulers must act as servants of God, avenging His displeasure against evildoers." (p.14)

Bahnsen says God calls homosexuals "dogs" (p.93) and that any kind of sympathy for them is "out of place when it comes to capital crimes like... homosexuality." This doesn't mean gay people "have no civil rights at all and can be treated in a shameful fashion. They would still retain, for example the right to due process of law, to a fair and speedy trial, and to legal defense." After that, you can kill them.

Gary North, a supporter of theocracy associated with the misnamed Mises Institute as well as a former staff member for Ron Paul, says: "The death penalty is God's required means of enforcing earthly restitution for certain crimes, irrespective of the opinion of any victims." He then lists some "crimes" that qualify for the death penalty: bestiality, homosexual acts and blasphemy. (Leviticus: An Economic Commentary, Institute for Christian Economics, p. 374) North says this "crime" is against God and the "convicted criminal is to be transferred from the civil court to God's heavenly court. The means of this transfer is execution." "Death is restitution to God." (p.375)

North argues that God "does not hate the sin and love the sinner. He hates the sin and hates the sinner. God is indeed a homophobe." (p. xxix) And stoning is "God's mandated method of execution." (p.336) The "integrity of the family," he says, "must be maintained by the threat of death." (The Sinai Strategy, Institute for Christian Economics, pp 59-60.) Just remember that the next time you hear a religious conservative invoking the "defense of the family" as justification for their prejudices.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Cop kills man when he asked for search warrant.

Another cop screams about his "authority" and simply executes a man for asking him for a warrant. And the police union "stands behind our man." As bad as cops are, who have this authority complex, cops like this union representative who try to defend these thugs are even worse. Good cops tell us that bad cops are rare. I disagree. Bad cops are common. What is rare is getting the proof. In this case the man's partner said there was no threat and he didn't understand why his partner did what he did.

Cops do this because they get away with it. And, I will state once more, that while I don't believe in the death penalty I do believe that police officers, who murder should get the maximum penalty with no parole. Cops have to be held to a higher standard, not to a lower one, which is precisely how the justice systems treats these thugs.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Obnoxious "celebrity" chef plays nanny.

On the left is "celebrity" chief Jamie Oliver, an English twat if ever there was one. Oliver. The photo on the left is Jamie before he started playing Nanny. The to the right is Jamie today. Notice anything?

As Nanny Oliver is using his "reality show" to harass American schools he himself is living high on the hog. I might suggest he is eating high on the hog.

Oliver has celebrityitis, that disease that causes someone who gets attention to suddenly become personally weird while pompously lecturing the world. The weird includes the typical "celebrity" trait of saddling their poor children with bizarre names. So Oliver has named his kids, in order, Poppy Honey Rosie, Daisy Boo, Petal Blossom Rainbow and Buddy Bear. The poor kids.

Oliver has a couple of gimmicks he pulls to get himself noticed. One is that the picks poorer regions to go lecture them like some "high class" missionary being sent to heathens. He did this in Rotherham, England, with TV cameras in tow, and again in Huntington, West Virginia.

Oliver's desire to make the rules for what people eat may just be revealed in the name of one of his "reality shows:" The Ministry of Food.

A lot of the Nanny State measures that ban foods from the schools started with the campaigning of chubby face Jamie. Typical of "celebrities" Oliver is gaga over expensive "organic" foods. He bragged that he buys "from specialist growers, organic suppliers and farmers" and not "supermarkets" which "are like a factory." Of course, being a millionaire makes that easy for him to do. It is much harder for the poorer folks he goes out to "save" from themselves. That didn't stop him from taking £1.2 million per year to hype the up-market food chain Sainsbury's. He then turned around attacking the store for selling items of which he doesn't approve. Sainsbury's CEO Justin King responded: "Dictating to people—or unleashing an expletive-filled tirade—is not the way to engagement." Poor Mr. King does not realize that "dictating to people" is precisely what a "Ministry of Food" is intended to do.

Oliver convinced a school in England to allow him to bring his cameras into the school and let him prepare all the meals for students. He used his time to campaign for government measures to "improve" what people eat. Tony Blair, the George Bush of England, immediately promised to spend£280 million more per year on school food. Hey, those organic foods are costly. But, it seems the main thing Oliver wants is publicity for himself, hence his confrontational style and publicity stunts, such as his slaughtering a live lamb on television.

One school in the UK allowed itself to be used as a publicity stunt for Oliver. Oliver came in and mandated what foods students would be allowed to eat for lunch and what they couldn't eat. Parents revolted by coming to the school at lunch time and handing banned food items to their kids through the fence.

While Oliver claims that only "local produce" should be used, and that all meals should be prepared from scratch, it turned out that sauces he used in his own restaurant were produced at a factory, 400 miles away.

Oliver, like many do-gooders simply became tired of people not taking his advice so he lobbied for government programs that would force his recipes down the throats of school children. Other that the extra millions that Tony Blair was happy to spend, the net result was that 400,000 British school children left the school lunch system preferring to bring bagged lunches from homes. Oliver also created a black market in the snack foods that he hates. Students started smuggling foods onto campus and selling them to classmates, which lead to kids being suspended from school. That causes me to wonder what the primary purpose of the school is: Is it to educate children or make them eat according to the dictates of Chubby Jamie? It would seem that students being thrown out of school for disobeying "The Ministry of Food," pretty much made it clear that education takes a backseat to Jamie Oliver's politics.

After his efforts in Rotherham, Oliver wrote an 8 page "manifesto"to try to pressure the British government to establish a "Ministry of Food center in every British town." Oliver's manifesto used the wedge of national health care to control everything. He argued that what people eat is a "massive social issue" because any health issues related to diet will cost the National Health Service money. This, by the way, is one hidden cost of nationalized health care, it is then used as an excuse to control over any area of life that might impact one's health—and what doesn't qualify? Oliver warned, "the government urgently needs to be putting cooking right at the top of its agenda."

Reason magazine noted that one meal Oliver suggested as a "wholesome meal" to take to school actually contained 1,183 calories and 55 grams of fat. They noted the same student could eat a Happy Meal at McDonald's and another Chicken McNugget's Happy Meal and get less calories and less fat than they would from Oliver's "wholesome" suggestion. Is it any wonder that Oliver had become a fatty eating his "healthy" food. This isn't an issue of health, but of control.

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Insanity of Hate

It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed some people are with hatred. Consider these two examples.

In the bilgewater town of Hazard, Kentucky, they have a public pool called The Pavillion. The organization Mending Hearts, Inc., is contracted with Medicaid to provide services to "individuals with mental retardation or developmental disabilities." Yes, they get government funding but they aren't using it to bomb the shit out peasants in some third world country.

Instead they give services to people who probably actually need it. They took some of their clients to The Pavilion, including two men who are also gay, but who are also mentally disabled. Shortly after they arrived staff from the pool approached the staff from Mending Hearts and told that they would have to leave because they "gay people" are not allowed to use the pool!According Shirlyn Perkins, Executive Director of Mending Hearts, "My staff told the man that what he was trying to do was discrimination. The man stated that what he was doing was in the Bible and he could do it." Gee, I guess it's a good thing the man didn't think they were witches and burned them to death, that in the Bible as well.

Perkins says her staff continued to argue but that they, and their clients, were forced to leave the pool. Please remember that the people forced to leave were mentally disabled and it was clear that they didn't even understand why they were being thrown out. Perkins said: "My clients, who already feel ridiculed and different, left the city-owned facility crying and embarrassed for trying to participate in 'normal' activities that everyday 'normal' people do."

Allegedly the City Manager, Carlos Combs, has offered an apology and said staff were spoken to about the issue. But really, do people honestly believe that the Bible tells them to do shit like this? My god! Okay, this is hillbilly territory that we're talking about but what excuse does Republican Congressvermin Allen West have?

You might remember that "comedian" Tracy Morgan went into a rant where he said that his sone turned out gay he would kill him. Apparently Morgan thought that was funny. An intern, working for Congressman Allen received a tweet from the band, Scissors Sisters which said: "Dear Tracy Morgan's son: if you are gay, you can TOTALLY come live with me. We'll read James Baldwin & watch Paris is Burning." An intern retweeted the message. West apologized for the tweet, said the intern "made an error" and then fired the young man for that offense alone. Surely this was a faux pas, but really, isn't termination a bit of overkill?

And, this brings up the question of why Congressman West was subscribed to the twitter account for an openly gay band like Scissor Sisters? I sure hope Congressman West doesn't have a "wide stance" problem?

Bonus lunacy: Yes, three for the price of two! Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley, a Republican, of course, was pushing for legislation to make it harder to vote in the state. He claimed this was necessary because he heard rumors about a "'pro-family' candidate" who "was favored to win until his opponent, 'a homosexual activist candidates,' bused in homosexuals from other parts of the state who showed up at the polls and claimed residency at an address occupied by a local Dunkin Donuts." Why, now they are passing legislation based on rumors they heard? And if this were a Dunkin Donuts wouldn't it be more likely that cops were bussed in from around the state?

Really, what kind of paranoid idiots are attracted to the Republican Party these days?

And, if you want a completely funny take on things, from the opposite view, here is the opening number from the Tony Awards. It's amusing! At least some people have a sense of humor, too bad they aren't Republicans. By the way, yesterday was a good day for libertarians at the Tony Awards. Congrats to libertarians Trey Parker and Matt Stone, whose comedic musical on Mormonism, The Book of Mormon, won nine Tonys. The libertarian duo between them won 7 Tony Awards. And libertarian John Larroquette won for best performer in a feature role in musical. I know conservatives whine that they don't get recognized in the entertainment fields, but maybe it's because they produce such crap. They try to drag libertarians into that mix as well, claiming they get no respect either, except for Stone, Parker, Larroquette, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Raquel Welch, Orson Bean, Darcy Halsey (CSI), Dixie Carter (sadly gone now), Denis Leary, Penn and Teller, Jason Reitman, Tom Selleck, Wil Wheaton (though turned off to the label by bitchy libertarians), Marc Cherry (creator Desperate Housewives), Tracy Torme (produces and screenwrite).... well, you get my point. Enjoy the comedy, song and dance.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Republican Wants to Give Rapists Free Pass

A Republican State Representative, Ryan Fattman, wants to give rapists a free pass provided they make sure they rape women who are "illegal" immigrants. Republicans, the organized party of hate in America, were protesting the decision by Gov. Patrick to not join a federal "Secure Comminities" program that tuns local cops into immigration thugs.

The Governor noted that law enforcement says that such measures push the immigrant community away from cooperating with the police when it comes to criminal investigations—and by criminal I mean things that actually violate the rights of others, not the kind of "crimes" Republicans want enforce, which merely offend the tastes of fundamentalist Christians.

Fattman was asked about a female "illegal" immigrant who might be raped and then afraid to come forward to report the rapist. Exuding the love of Christ that is so typical of Republicans, Fattman said: "My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward." He then repeated the lie bigots use to excuse their bigotry: "If you do it [immigrate] the right way, you don't have to be concerned about these things."

I will try to explain this slowly, so that even mentally-challenged Republican office holders can understand. First, it is almost completely impossible to "do it the right way," thanks to their big government, bureaucratic hurdles meant to actually prevent people from immigrating legally. When my ancestors came to the US, they just got on a boat and then walked in. They didn't have to hire immigration attorneys and jump through the hoops that the hate-mongers have erected to prevent immigration. One actually just walked across the border, from Canada. Damn him, but for that I could have been born in a free country!

Fattman also said the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't "extend to illegal immigrants." And he is not worried about racial profiling. Of course not. Neither is the Klan.

Now I wonder if a child is raped, who is hear illegal, if Fattman's hatred goes so far as to claim that the rapist of the child shouldn't be reported because the "illegals" have to be taught a lesson.

Let us assume that Mr. Fattman has managed to find a brain-dead female, besotted enough with the Bible to marry him. Let us assume that one night she is walking home from her local church five minute of hate meeting against gay, illegal, Muslim, Mexicans. Along the way a good, God-fearing 'Merican, who had the sense to be born here in the first place, not like them "take-our-jobs, welfare-consuming brown people, comes up to Mrs. Fattman and violently has his way with her, as his contribution to the furtherance of the white race.

Mrs. Fattman is not a particularly observant woman, hence the reason she married Fattman in the first place. She doesn't notice the "God, Guns & Guts" bumper sticker on the pick-up truck, or the license plate number as her rapists drives off to his local Klavern meeting at the GOP offices. But, not far off, is a one of those 'Mexcans" who came here illegally. He say the entire rape. In fact he got a photo of the rapists, clear as day, along with the license plate number.

Then he thought about calling the police to give them the evidence. But then he remembers that Fattman and his fellow fanatics said that people like him should be afraid "to come forward." And he doesn't. He erases the photo. He doesn't call the police. He goes home to his family and tells them it was an uneventful day. Of course if Mrs. Fattman got pregnant then Mr. Fattman would want to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. After all that baby was coming into the country the right way!

In the end Fattman and others like him are telling "illegal" immigrants that if they witness a crime they shouldn't report it. If they can testify against a murderer they better keep their mouths shut. If they know where the child-killer lives, keep that information to themselves. Even if they are learn of some real terrorist plot, "they should be afraid to come forward." And this is what passes for "tough on crime" in Republicans circles. They would rather catch someone for the non-victim crime of looking for a job without government permission slips, that catch rapists, killers or terrorists. They hate immigrants so much they would rather give a free pass to real criminals.

The Blatant Dishonesty of CNN

When it came to CNN's exclusion of Gov. Gary Johnson from their "debate" for all Republican candidates who aren't Gary Johnson, I took it as a stupid policy based on their own ignorance. Now, I have reason to think otherwise. Now I believe they are intentionally dishonest.

Johnson, who as far as this blogger is concerned, is the only libertarian in the race, was excluded because CNN says he doesn't poll high enough in opinion polls. Opinion polls at this point i the race are nothing more than name-recognition polls and I thought CNN ought to know this, or at least one of the kids interning there might be able to tell them.

Tell me how Gary Johnson can qualify for one of the CNN bogus debates if they intentionally exclude him from the poll. See, CNN goes around asking Republicans what that they think about Republican candidates. They rattle off a list of names of bigots, morons, warmongers, statists, immigrant-hating, earmark-loving, Republicans. And then the member of the public responds to the name. They include everyone and the kitchen sink, include Gingrich whose campaign has collapsed with the mass defection of his own staff. Well, almost everyone. The one candidate they will not mention is Gary Johnson.

Let us consider how the media looks at this race. They have all these Right-wing conservatives willing to impose some level of theocracy on America, Rick Santorum being the worst of the bad lot. They have the token black guy that got attention by saying silly things in a debate and thus got some name recognition. And they have their token "libertarian," Ron Paul, who they can easily make look absurd by showing the world his wacko views on the NAFTA Superhighway, the "Amero" conspiracy, the banking conspiracy, the CFR conspiracy, and whatever paranoid delusion the Birchers are dishing out this week. And they have Gary Johnson who is far closer to being an actual libertarian. Unlike Paul, Johnson does NOT support things like DOMA, doesn't want to ban to abortion, doesn't hate immigrants, said that Paul's Wall on the Border is a waste, etc. In other words, Gary Johnson is good where Ron Paul is pathetic and Johnson has a proven track record of attracting Democrats and Republicans both in elections.

He was a Republican elected in majority Democratic state and then he got re-elected a second time with an even higher majority. One poll showed that of all the Republicans running, who were polled to that day, he was the only one where with a positive rating in his own state. For all the others, people in their home states had higher negatives views about them, then positive. All, except Gary Johnson.

When CNN sets the rules for debate inclusion, and requires candidates to get a certain percentage in the polls, but then goes out of the way to exclude specific candidates from the very polls they take, that is not oversight. That is dishonesty.

The Baltimore Sun has taken on CNN and the other "sponsors" of this dishonest debate. They note that by the qualifications listed by CNN, Gary Johnson did qualify for inclusion in the debate. CNN immediately changed the rules to exclude him. They said "this last-minute alteration of the criteria is akin to that most-hated sports analogy: Changing the rules in the middle of the game." As the Sun write: "They shouldn't change the rules to justify the exclusion of a candidate whom they had already improperly decided to exclude." My view: FUCK CNN, they are scum.

Beck and Barton Twisting History to Push Theocracy

Here is a video where fundamentalist David Barton distorts a letter by John Adams, which Glen Beck then promotes as part of conspiracy-mongering, crazy Mormon revisionist history. Barton took Adams out of context. Adams was ridiculing the very views that Barton implies he supported. But, for Barton to do this, he had to twist what Adams believed. Adams was a Unitarian. As a Unitarian he did not believe in the Trinity. He denied the existence of a Holy Ghost and thought Jesus was just a man. Beck gets his pseudo-history from the conspiracists Bircher, W. Cleon Skousen, one of the most daft figures in the history of the Far Right.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

TSA Continues Its Heavy-Handed Tactics

The thuggish Transportation Security Administration, an arm of the worst government agency around, Homeland Security, went after a mentally challenged man with the mental ability of a two-year-old, that would be the man they went after although the mental ability of the TSA wasn't much higher.

I fear the confidence of the father, Dr. David Mandy, in the TSA and the federal government is too optimistic. He thinks that because he got an apology letter after he complained this shows the federal government listens. But if they listened they would revise program and that won't happen. They have standard responses. In cases where they have gone too far with someone who is clearly sympathetic to the public: this man, elderly people in wheel chairs, terrified small children, etc., the best response is to apologize to make the issue go away. Of course, the problems continue to happen over and over again. In other cases they try to smear the victim. If people are recording the incident we see them move in immediately to try to prevent the filming.

Unless you have absolutely no choice in the matter—don't fly. If you are flying internationally do NOT take flights that refuel in the United States, look for alternative routes. Some airlines have already rerouted flights through Canada instead, because of the way their passengers are being harassed by the TSA thugs.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Most Americans believe in something: surprise, surprise!

A recent Gallup poll indicates that just over 90% of Americans believe in “God.” The headline on the poll says that quite clearly: “More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God.”

What isn’t immediately clear is two things. One is that the already vague, non-specific concept “god,” has been supplemented with two other vague, non-specific concepts and affirmation in any of them is then rolled together to get the 9-in-10 figure. For instance, people are also asked if they believe in a “universal spirit,” which is even more non-specific than the term “god.” Also included in this figure are all people who believe in a “higher power.” Higher than what?

Does this mean higher than them? Higher than me? Higher than you? Higher than humans? Would potentially more evolved species living elsewhere in the universe, which is possible, count as well?

These are rather vague concepts. Ask people if they believe in “good government” and you will get widespread agreement. Ask them if they believe in specific policies and you get widespread disagreement. The vague “good government” concept gets widespread support because it is left undefined.When offered other, even more obtuse terms, beside the “god” term, we discover that the 9-in-10 figure drops to 8 in 10. Then 80% say they believe in a god, while 12% opt for universal spirit.

And, among these believer there is actually rather widespread doubt. We see 90% drop to 80% and if you ask people if they are convinced (by what?) there is a god, the figure goes to 73%.

What Gallup doesn’t do is ask people what kind of god, or which god it is they believe in. At that point the shit would really hit the fan. Mormons think they will becomes gods themselves through the secret rituals of the Mormon Temple—cheap rip-offs of Masonic rituals that Joseph Smith borrowed. That is a very different view of “god” than you get from Christians. Fundamentalists are adamant that Jesus is God. Jews tend to disagree, as do Muslims. New Agers might argue we are all god, and god is everything, and thus nothing in specific. A “higher power” could be something as non-supernatural as having a positive attitude.

This reveals the second major issue with the poll. By using vague concepts the poll hides the deChristianizing of America. The American Religious Identification Survey, in 1990, found that 86% of Americans said they were Christians. By 2008 that had dropped to 70%, and many of them are not Christian in their personal theology.

In 1944, if you asked the “god” question, a good number of Americans meant the Christian god. Many meant Jesus specifically, but at least all meant him or “God the Father.” A small percentage meant Jehovah of the Old Testament. Very few meant Buddha, Allah, Krishna, etc. What we have seen is a lot of Americans moving away from Christian theology to more vague concepts of spirituality, including a large number embracing a relatively non-theistic belief in positive thinking or mental energy of some sort.

Previous polls indicate that around 60% of Americans believe in a personal God, that is a God that is similar to Christian concept of God.

The belief in “a something,” which is what the Gallup poll comes down to, hides the growing number of Americans who reject religion while still believing is this “something.” Somewhere between 15% and 20% of Americans now lack a religion. And 27% have said they don’t want a religious funeral when they die.

Another flaw in the poll is that Gallup people give a false alternative. They write: “The percentages who more definitively say there is no God are general 6% or 7%...” But an atheist is merely someone who lacks a belief in a god. They may say there is no god and do so with certainty, or they may simply say they have no such belief without asserting the other.

This atheist does not say there is “no god” because the term is so non-specific I am sure I have not heard every definition that could apply. I do believe the Christian god does not exist and cannot exist because I find it a self-contradictory concept. I would say the same for Allah. But having not explored every imaginary concept of god possible I can’t speak to them, and don’t. Of the concepts I’ve heard, I reject all of them, including the flying spaghetti monster.

The worst aspect of the poll isn’t that it is asking about such a vague concept as a god, spirit, or higher power, but how the Religious Right misuses the data. I regularly hear them crow that 90% of Americans believe in god. From that they quickly switch to the Christian God, then, more specifically, they try to tie that God into their political agenda. This is bait-and-switch a couple times over.

That all said, there is one important thing to remember: whether or not a being called a god exists or not is most certainly not determined by public opinion polls. If he doesn't exists, even 100% belief figures will not cause him to come into existence. If he does exist, then even 0% belief doesn't not negate his existence. Things exist separate from our belief that they do. There are billions of planets that none of us know about or "believe" in, at least not in any specific way. Yet they are out there. If you have cancer cells growing in your body, they will continue to grow even if you don't believe they are there.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

More refuge, more envy.

In spite of what I said yesterday, about the malicious and envious of the world, who wish to tear down, I still find solace in talent. And this story of undiscovered talent is truly astounding.

If just half this story is true this is one of the more phenomenal discoveries on the various talent shows around the world. This is from Korea's Got Talent. Sung-bong Choi is 22-years-old. He is a manual laborer. His life was one of difficulty. At age three he was left at an orphanage, at five years of age he ran away because he saws they physically abused him. As a five-year-old he slept in stairways and public toilets. He sold gum and energy drinks on the streets to make money and feed himself. One day he was selling his wares in a nightclub when he heard a singer and decided that was something he wanted to do.

As I said yesterday, where there is talent, there is envy from those who lack, but wish they had it. And some immediately started throwing mud at this young man. They noted he attended an arts high school and pretended they uncovered a secret. In fact, his application mentioned this, and he mentions that high school was his first time in a formal school, and he notes he took "master classes" there. Draw your own conclusions.

Monday, June 06, 2011

Talent Uplifts Us, Envy Tears Us Down

Over the last few days a specific situation has increasingly annoyed me.

I recently wrote a one line comment accompanying a video, "When life seems like a load of crap, when the world seems inside-out, when justice is nowhere to be found, I take refuge in the talent of others." I followed that up with a brief comment about another video, regarding Ronan Parke of the UK, who was in the Britain's Got Talent show. I said that the dreams of others often feeds my soul. I take pleasure in seeing people striving and succeeding.

In that post I included a video of an extremely nervous 12-year-old performing at superstar levels as his knees knocked. He was the verge of tears and did cry when he won.

One thing an old friend, Bob Sheaffer, taught me in his book Resentment Against Achievement, was that any achievement big enough to be noticed will be big enough to fuel resentment and envy. Envy is a pernicious and evil emotion. It isn't what many now think it is, it isn't admiration for something, but hatred of it. It is a hatred based on someone else having what you desire. Ayn Rand was spot-on when she said envy was hatred of the good for being the good. She said: "It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue that one regards as desirable." It is a wholly negative emotion.

Aesop once told a tale of two neighbors, one filled with avarice, the other with envy. The gods decided to punish them and so promised that whatever the one wished for, the other would receive doubly. The avaricious man want a room full of gold. But seeing his neighbor with twice that turned him bitter and angry. The envious man, after thinking about it, decided he wanted to be made blind in one eye, thus knowing his neighbor would be made blind in both. Envy doesn't lift the envious, it tears down others instead.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what happened, but I honestly did not expect it. I actually thought that the envious bastards in the world would leave a 12-year-old kid alone. I sometimes feel my expectations about people are too high.

Ronan Parke performed phenomenally well. And he immediately attracted tens of thousands of fans. But the snipping began almost immediately. It was quickly apparent on Youtube where videos of Ronan's performance were often accompanied by slimy, resentful, hateful remarks. Many of them attacked this boy for the presumption that he must be gay, as if that is something to despise. But the same sort of remarks appeared in other places.

I don't mind if two people speculate about someone else's sexuality. It is not a great conversation. But, when it is done maliciously, it is another thing. To throw such remarks into the face of a 12-year-old boy is hateful. I am not a violent person, but it is people like that whose teeth should introduced to a sledgehammer. It infuriates me that anyone would treat a kid in such a way. And why? The only reason he was so treated was because of his talent. Had he failed miserably the entire episode would have been forgotten. People intentionally tried to torment the boy because he was good!

Parke's talents were such that all the British bookies had him pegged as the hands-down winner. And them some proverbial asswipe used the internet to start a smear campaign. A hate campaign was started against Parke that claimed the talent show was rigged and that Parke had been personally "groomed" by the show, for two years previous, and was set up to win. There was no evidence for any of this, it was simply a lie.

But the gutter press got involved. I skimmed a trashy column in the Daily Mail. No one with half a brain expects journalism out of the Daily Mail, it is a paper that trawls garbage piles, sewers, and dung heaps for its stories. It is the paper of the uneducated, resentful, and failures of British society.

One of their sleazy columnists picked up on the allegations and repeated them. This trash purveyor made sure she said that there was no evidence but then spent the whole column attacking the talent show on the assumption that all the accusations were true. This is par for the course when it comes to what the Mail calls journalism.

The story became a major media circus with this poor kid thrust into the middle of it, and all without a single shred of evidence. It clearly had one goal, to hurt Ronan Parke for the sin of having talent. The resentful underclass in the UK lapped up the accusations and apparently believed it.

The finale of the show came as the "home audience" would vote for the winner of the contest. One week earlier, in the semi-finals, Parke had a substantial percentage of the votes. In a few days he lost a lot of support, not because he was less talented by any means. In fact, he clearly improved his performance substantially. He lost support because some anonymous source made up accusations that appealed to the most resentful among them. And, given the number of attacks on the boy, on the presumption that he is gay, I suggest there was some anti-gay hatred involved as well—another hallmark of the British underclass.

When the votes were tallied a less-talented "bloke" from Scotland, name JaiMcDowall, had won. He squeaked by with the popular vote, but only after a week-long smear campaign against Parke. McDowall insisted he had won the show entirely based on his talent. Having seen his performance, I have my doubts. His 2% victory is far more likely to be the result of the concerted smear campaign against his prime competitor. In addition, according to press reports, McDowall got a high percentage of votes from Scotland, based entirely on the fact that he is Scottish.

I've nothing against the Scots, but I sure do resent raw nationalism of that sort. Someone doesn't deserve to win simply because they are from the same country as yourself. That sort of raw tribalism is rather offensive to me. In the end the hopes of Ronan Parke to win this contest were smashed by the ugliest of human emotions. He was the victim of three negative human qualities: resentment against talent, tribalism, and bigotry (on the presumption that he is gay).

I tend to think that Parke's career will continue to expand. There are claims that various music companies are already vying for his attention and some estimate the boy could be a millionaire by Christmas, at least on paper. I suspect that McDowall will reach the point where he goes out to become an alcoholic just to get a slot on Celebrity Rehab. There is a history of talent shows where a less-talented performer beats out the favorite, probably due to a groundswell of resentment, and then marches into oblivion.

Note: I had video for this post but once again blogger fails to upload it and tries to turn it into a "youtube" video.

UPDATE: Ronan Parke has now spoken about what was done to him. He said, "I was really upset—I have bullying." He spoke of the anonymous smear campaign which successfully scuttled his chances in the Britain's Got Talent TV contest. Ronan said, "It was a horrible for someone to do, attack me like that. The Sunreports that the anonymous smear not only said that the contest had been rigged for Ronan but "also made cruel personal slurs." I think Ronan hit the nail on the head when it said this was bullying. One week earlier Ronan had scored over 60% of the at-home vote, only to lose by just over 2% after the smear came out. A further update is below the video as I have tracked down the smear.

I have tracked down one right-wing website that has the smear up. The original was posted on a site that allows one to leave notes on the net and then send the url to others so they can read it. This right-wing site, replete with the silly mask from V for Vendetta, claims they read it there and then when they went to see it again, it was gone. Apparently they made a copy of it. Odd that. Think about it. If they had originally made a copy of it, why would they go to the same old copy a second time to discover it disappeared? They couldn't have copied it AFTER it disappeared. This makes me wonder if this site was not the one that manufactured the smear, then posted it in a second place just so they can distribute it by claiming someone else wrote it.

Yes, the site made the claims that Parke was discovered two years ago and that there was a secret plot to have him win this year after training him. And, the post claims to be looking out for poor Ronan, while constantly making nasty remarks about him. The author of the post is clearly obsessed with what he calls Ronan's "girlishness." This obsessions takes up several paragraphs of the vicious smear. He claims: "As for his effeminate and girlishness, this posed a bigger problem..." They claimed Ronan was told to "boy-up" but "with his girlishness still showing through, the image just wasn't believable." Now the conspirators supposedly decined to "enhance his campness" so a "total gaysexualisation of Ronan secretly planned." (Note, grammar is as in the original.) He claims that Ronan's parents didn't know about this—as if they wouldn't notice if Ronan was suddenly "gaysexualised," whatever that means.

This fake letter claims that the "camp, girlie-giggling kind you see on BGT and this is a direct result of SYCO's styling." (Syco being the company run by Simon Cowall, who runs the show. The anonymous attacker says that Cowell's company "totally gayed up" Ronan but that the "gaying-up" backfired.

Do I think envy plays a role? Yes, I absolutely do. It happens all the time where someone with talent is being attacked. But it also is now much clearer that the anonymous smear-monger is also going after Ronan for appearing gay. The writer pretends he is sure that Ronan is not gay, and that the plot to "gay" him up (for whom?) will mean that "Ronan may issues in coming to terms with his sexuality in a couple of years." He calls him effeminate and "girlish," from the start, claims that BGT intensified it to "sexualize" the boy and now this "girlish" boy will have trouble with his sexuality as a result. Astounding. This gutter-trawler is the main person causing anguish for the boy and he should be ashamed. And that this conservative blog site would repeat it as gospel truth is shameful (I say repeat on the assumption that they are not the real authors in the first place—something that seems very possible to me.)

I also read the comments, which all assume the accusations are true and which make similar bigoted remarks. Some refer to this "real informatio." Another says: "Cowell procures and grooms little boys, but who for?" Another: "I thought child exploitation wad (sic) illegal on (sic) this country." Another says "EVERYTHING on TV is a lie" and urges people to read the far Right Townhall.com site. Another says these "distortions" are to "build anti white race hate and self loathing.

Another wrote, "when the way the people are manipulated and treated like sheep is openly revealed, the people will not care and come back for more." Who else but a moron would call an anonymous smear as "openly" being revealed?

One claims the show "keeps the public entertained while we descend further into the mire." A few readers to the site, who no doubt tracked it down as a major source for the smear noted that the entire letter, allegedly written by a top executive from Sony, was filed with multiple spelling errors. A top manager, for instance, who couldn't spell management. They wondered why anyone was believe the claims made.

It appears that after the anonymous smear was posted someone created a Twitter account to spread links to the story. Using the name UKLegion, the tweeter sent out 85 messages spreading the story and attacking Parke, again the remarks were heavily anti-gay. On May 31 he wrote: "Ronan Parke will grow up to be a mega-bender...he'll never interested in girls." Thirty minutes later: "Ronan Parke should be in school, not mincing around on nat. tv. His parents need shooting for allowing it." That was repeated 45 minutes later.

Then he used another slur, one I didn't understand myself. He said: "By the time he's 20, Ronan Parke's ring-piece will be sold badly battered, it will resemble a busted cat-flap." I confess I never heard the term "ring-piece" and had to look it up. It means rectum. This is what the smear-monger is saying about a 12-year-0ld. Shameful.

A few minutes after that gem he sends out a message to a girl who likes Ronan's singing. "Well he ain't gonna fancy you, or haven't you noticed...he's clearly gonna be gay."

This obsession with the boy's sexuality has to make you wonder. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is self-hating and sexually obsessed with Parke himself.